|
|
Post by Huxley on Dec 28, 2019 20:21:03 GMT
God is not a hands-on God...per-say. He is more or less an observer and a score keeper. So you play the hand your dealt.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 29, 2019 0:52:02 GMT
I find the question 'Why would God let us suffer' to be a strange one. First, when we ask that question we're assuming for the sake of argument that 'God' exists. However, if 'God' exists then any suffering in this world gains a different perspective. There is no religious scenario where God exists but when you die 'that's it'. So if we're presuming that 'God' exists to ask 'Why does He allow suffering', any amount of suffering we have here is nothing when measured against an eternal afterlife. You might as well ask 'Why do we allow people to get scared on roller-coasters'? Because if 'God' exists then any suffering here is as transient and temporary as a feeling of fear on an amusement park ride. It actually doesn't assume God exists...because the question is "Why WOULD God let us suffer?" So the question is conditional of there being a god. But the question does assume a kind of God who might give a rats ass if people suffer. Perhaps God doesn't care at all about people who, to him/it, are no more than ticks on a horse's ass or the fungus that grows under a log in the swamp. So it might be indifferent or it might even kind of enjoy making things suffer...just to watch the response since god itself can't suffer. I don't think the "any amt of suffering is nothing compared to eternal life" works because THAT assumes an afterlife...an afterlife of supposed bliss. Just because a god exists is no indication of any afterlife...much less one of bliss. But the question then would be why would a God that gives a shit about humans bother with the "3 score and 10" of suffering if it is dwarfed by an eternity of bliss? It seems a big waste of suffering that a god with any benevolence at all would avoid if for no other reason than to keep from looking like a dick. What would be the point? But as above, perhaps God wants to look like a dick. But as for suffering here...I'm perfectly happy and have suffered almost none at all. So, I'd have no bone to pick with a god. But I am aware of many who seem to have suffered extensively...horribly...an in many cases not at all due to any fault of their own. I guess I can be relieved and not worry about them because...you know...any amt of suffering those dweebs endure is nothing compared to an eternal afterlife. Presumably said god is gonna make up for all those children suffering chronic malnutrition and abuse just so I can have my slice of fucking free will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 29, 2019 5:14:46 GMT
A belief about Santa is not a belief about the kids who believe in him; try another analogy. The analogy was that kids believe that Santa is real in the same way unconscious people believe this Universe is 'real'. Unconscious people believe whatever dreams their brains conjure. Again, if you don't believe the universe/pain/suffering is real, then I'd be more than happy to come over and test that theory by taking a hammer to your fingers. Maybe after a smack or two you'll realize that metaphysical nonsense like "the universe isn't real, man!" is a fun thought to ponder when high, but not such a good thought to live by when you're actually conscious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 29, 2019 5:17:52 GMT
Your position lacks consistency. How so? It seems obvious that if someone is going to ask 'Why does God allow suffering' you have to take into consideration the implications of what God existing would mean.
And what are those implications? Implications require some kind of known facts by which to reason from. If you don't know anything about something then, even if you imagine it exists, its existence doesn't "imply" anything because you can literally make up anything you want about it. In any case, the rational question to ask isn't "if god (any given god) exists, how can we rationalize the way reality is," the rational question is "given how reality is, is that good evidence that god (any given god) exists."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 29, 2019 10:37:29 GMT
The problem with this argument is an infinity with no suffering would still be preferable to an infinity with a little bit of suffering. A maximally good God should therefore prefer the former. For a theodicy to work, I think it needs to show that suffering is necessary for some greater good. You don't think an eternity of bliss (or absence of suffering) would get boring? How would you know what you're experiencing is a lack of suffering if you've never experienced suffering? But relatively speaking some people do experience much more suffering than others - if suffering is necessary to appreciate the absence of suffering later, why do some suffer much more than others? Should God not ensure that people just have the minimum amount of suffering necessary to appreciate the lack of suffering later and no more? Even if we allow that much suffering is caused by human free will, there is also an abundance of suffering due to natural evil which is not distributed evenly. And if an eternity with no suffering would be boring, an eternity with a relatively little bit of suffering at the start would soon get boring too, no? |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 29, 2019 10:41:00 GMT
I just often wonder how allowing for believing in a creator and that Jesus showed the people of the world how to live the type of life that creator hoped we would make of it, translates into this Omnigod who controls everything in a micromanagerial way while somehow still giving us free will. I try to find in the Bible, a wonderful collection of ancient texts by many different authors, where it actually says that, and beyond taking words of the praise of men to a creator quite literally, I'm having trouble envisioning the creator in the way religion has interpreted it for us. Pagan Greek philosophy arrived at the idea of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God and this was applied to early Christian theology. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 29, 2019 12:10:25 GMT
I am a little confused as to why you have been triggered by Sam’s post and made some point about something as though he is talking literally. I am a little confused as to why you think I was "triggered". The point he made was ridiculous. I pointed that out. He didn't like it. The end. Because you got on your high horse, just like you have here and are being glib. The op, as far as to my knowledge, works at an occupation where he is surrounded by people who are suffering. You have distorted his point to make yourself sound virtuous and it comes across as ridiculously phony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 30, 2019 1:46:10 GMT
God is not a hands-on God...per-say. He is more or less an observer and a score keeper. So you play the hand your dealt. You play the hand you’re dealt, this God thing of yours has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 30, 2019 11:17:54 GMT
The analogy was that kids believe that Santa is real in the same way unconscious people believe this Universe is 'real'. Unconscious people believe whatever dreams their brains conjure. Again, if you don't believe the universe/pain/suffering is real, then I'd be more than happy to come over and test that theory by taking a hammer to your fingers. Maybe after a smack or two you'll realize that metaphysical nonsense like "the universe isn't real, man!" is a fun thought to ponder when high, but not such a good thought to live by when you're actually conscious. When I say 'unconscious' I don't mean physically unconscious, I mean spiritually unconscious. If you have all your basic needs met (food, shelter, clothing), and you're not more or less in a state of perpetual awe at the mystery of existence itself, you're unconscious. If you have no sense of wonder anymore, and the Universe ceases to be a source of mystery and magic, you're unconscious. Not believing everything is 'real' doesn't mean I'm not susceptible to feeling nerve impulses while I'm trapped in this biological organism. That said, my dentist has at least two clients that decline all freezing when getting painful dental procedures done. He says they meditate a lot and one is a Buddhist. Maybe they'd let you go hit them in the face with a hammer? Feeling physical pain doesn't necessitate the belief that 'the suffering is indeed real'. You feel pain in a dream when you're getting hurt, the pain feels real and the dream environment can feel as real as this one.. but then you wake up. If you're not the body, then any pains that happen to the body are temporary and do not happen to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 30, 2019 11:26:18 GMT
How so? It seems obvious that if someone is going to ask 'Why does God allow suffering' you have to take into consideration the implications of what God existing would mean.
And what are those implications? Implications require some kind of known facts by which to reason from. If you don't know anything about something then, even if you imagine it exists, its existence doesn't "imply" anything because you can literally make up anything you want about it. In any case, the rational question to ask isn't "if god (any given god) exists, how can we rationalize the way reality is," the rational question is "given how reality is, is that good evidence that god (any given god) exists." In the question 'Why would/does God allow suffering', there are assumptions you can make even though I agree with you that no human mind can 'know God'. No matter what kind of God the belief is in, there is always connected to it the belief that 'When we die that's not it'. If when you die, 'that's not it', your suffering here is given a different perspective. A walk in the woods on a beautiful day is all the evidence I need.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 30, 2019 11:44:32 GMT
I find the question 'Why would God let us suffer' to be a strange one. First, when we ask that question we're assuming for the sake of argument that 'God' exists. However, if 'God' exists then any suffering in this world gains a different perspective. There is no religious scenario where God exists but when you die 'that's it'. So if we're presuming that 'God' exists to ask 'Why does He allow suffering', any amount of suffering we have here is nothing when measured against an eternal afterlife. You might as well ask 'Why do we allow people to get scared on roller-coasters'? Because if 'God' exists then any suffering here is as transient and temporary as a feeling of fear on an amusement park ride. But the question does assume a kind of God who might give a rats ass if people suffer. Perhaps God doesn't care at all about people who, to him/it, are no more than ticks on a horse's ass or the fungus that grows under a log in the swamp. So it might be indifferent or it might even kind of enjoy making things suffer...just to watch the response since god itself can't suffer. I don't think the "any amt of suffering is nothing compared to eternal life" works because THAT assumes an afterlife...an afterlife of supposed bliss. Just because a god exists is no indication of any afterlife...much less one of bliss. But the question then would be why would a God that gives a shit about humans bother with the "3 score and 10" of suffering if it is dwarfed by an eternity of bliss? It seems a big waste of suffering that a god with any benevolence at all would avoid if for no other reason than to keep from looking like a dick. What would be the point? But as above, perhaps God wants to look like a dick. But as for suffering here...I'm perfectly happy and have suffered almost none at all. So, I'd have no bone to pick with a god. But I am aware of many who seem to have suffered extensively...horribly...an in many cases not at all due to any fault of their own. I guess I can be relieved and not worry about them because...you know...any amt of suffering those dweebs endure is nothing compared to an eternal afterlife. Presumably said god is gonna make up for all those children suffering chronic malnutrition and abuse just so I can have my slice of fucking free will. I agree that the question assumes (for the sake of argument at least), that some from of God exists. If we're going to discuss the question 'Why WOULD God let us suffer'? We need to acknowledge that suffering has a different context if physical death is not the end. Any belief in God (external, internal or pervasive) comes along with the idea 'When we die that's not it'. "Just because a god exists is no indication of any afterlife...much less one of bliss." I can't think of any historical religion or people who had a belief in God(s), but no belief in any afterlife at all. Can you give me any examples of any religion of belief system believing God exists but 'There's no afterlife'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 30, 2019 12:05:38 GMT
 Who are you to question those that question the religious notion of God? What or who is God? Who are you to question my question of his questioning.😛 It was a typical religiously pious and shallow dogmatic approach you took that needed to be called out for its arrogance and absurdity of belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 30, 2019 12:19:32 GMT
Can you give me any examples of any religion of belief system believing God exists but 'There's no afterlife'? Many Sikhs deny an afterlife while believing in God. Also plenty of religions past and present have a very gloomy idea of the afterlife that puts a somewhat different perspective on things than if we assume a more positive afterlife. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 30, 2019 12:38:25 GMT
Can you give me any examples of any religion of belief system believing God exists but 'There's no afterlife'? Many Sikhs deny an afterlife while believing in God. Also plenty of religions past and present have a very gloomy idea of the afterlife that puts a somewhat different perspective on things than if we assume a more positive afterlife. Life After Death: Sikhs believe that upon death one merges back into the universal nature, just as a drop of rain merges back into the ocean. Individuality is lost. Sikhs do not believe in heaven or hell. Heaven can be experienced by being in tune with God while still alive. I guess individuality being lost would seem like death to most people. Most of us are somewhat invested in our life stories and names. I really like the drop of rain into the ocean analogy. I often think we are falling raindrops who have forgotten we are the Ocean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 30, 2019 13:24:22 GMT
Unconscious people believe whatever dreams their brains conjure. Again, if you don't believe the universe/pain/suffering is real, then I'd be more than happy to come over and test that theory by taking a hammer to your fingers. Maybe after a smack or two you'll realize that metaphysical nonsense like "the universe isn't real, man!" is a fun thought to ponder when high, but not such a good thought to live by when you're actually conscious. When I say 'unconscious' I don't mean physically unconscious, I mean spiritually unconscious. If you have all your basic needs met (food, shelter, clothing), and you're not more or less in a state of perpetual awe at the mystery of existence itself, you're unconscious. If you have no sense of wonder anymore, and the Universe ceases to be a source of mystery and magic, you're unconscious. Not believing everything is 'real' doesn't mean I'm not susceptible to feeling nerve impulses while I'm trapped in this biological organism. That said, my dentist has at least two clients that decline all freezing when getting painful dental procedures done. He says they meditate a lot and one is a Buddhist. Maybe they'd let you go hit them in the face with a hammer? Feeling physical pain doesn't necessitate the belief that 'the suffering is indeed real'. You feel pain in a dream when you're getting hurt, the pain feels real and the dream environment can feel as real as this one.. but then you wake up. If you're not the body, then any pains that happen to the body are temporary and do not happen to you. "Spiritually unconscious" is just more metaphysical woo, probably uttered by people who like to feel they're more enlightened than others. One shouldn't be in "awe at the mystery of existence" since mystery is just ignorance and there's nothing awesome about ignorance. Existence is awesome enough without exalting our ignorance, and that includes the things we know as much as the things we don't. The point is that if a "belief" like "nothing is real" doesn't pay rent to live in your head in the form of anticipating your experiences or affecting your decisions, then what's the point of believing it at all? It's just on par with "we're a brain in a vat" or "the universe is a simulation" and other unfalsifiable notions that serve no purpose beyond mental masturbation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 30, 2019 13:26:43 GMT
And what are those implications? Implications require some kind of known facts by which to reason from. If you don't know anything about something then, even if you imagine it exists, its existence doesn't "imply" anything because you can literally make up anything you want about it. In any case, the rational question to ask isn't "if god (any given god) exists, how can we rationalize the way reality is," the rational question is "given how reality is, is that good evidence that god (any given god) exists." In the question 'Why would/does God allow suffering', there are assumptions you can make even though I agree with you that no human mind can 'know God'. No matter what kind of God the belief is in, there is always connected to it the belief that 'When we die that's not it'. If when you die, 'that's not it', your suffering here is given a different perspective. A walk in the woods on a beautiful day is all the evidence I need. This doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said. To answer "why would/does God allow suffering?" first requires God existing to be answerable, otherwise you might as well ask "how many angles can fit on the head of a pin?" or "do Gargoyles hate elves?" How is a walk in the woods on a beautiful day evidence of anything beyond the fact that our brains evolved towards appreciating certain aesthetics?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 30, 2019 13:32:38 GMT
Many Sikhs deny an afterlife while believing in God. Also plenty of religions past and present have a very gloomy idea of the afterlife that puts a somewhat different perspective on things than if we assume a more positive afterlife. Life After Death: Sikhs believe that upon death one merges back into the universal nature, just as a drop of rain merges back into the ocean. Individuality is lost. Sikhs do not believe in heaven or hell. Heaven can be experienced by being in tune with God while still alive. I guess individuality being lost would seem like death to most people. Most of us are somewhat invested in our life stories and names. I really like the drop of rain into the ocean analogy. I often think we are falling raindrops who have forgotten we are the Ocean. It is interesting that the Abrahamic religions tend to see the afterlife in individualistic terms while Dharmic religions see it as more collective (or in Buddhist terms maybe destructive is a better word). Of course, the problem of evil is not really a problem for Dharmic religions in general since they tend to be pantheist or atheist so there is no question as to why God created the world to have suffering in it since they either hold that there is no God or that God is the world and therefore suffering just is rather than being a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 30, 2019 13:40:08 GMT
When I say 'unconscious' I don't mean physically unconscious, I mean spiritually unconscious. If you have all your basic needs met (food, shelter, clothing), and you're not more or less in a state of perpetual awe at the mystery of existence itself, you're unconscious. If you have no sense of wonder anymore, and the Universe ceases to be a source of mystery and magic, you're unconscious. Not believing everything is 'real' doesn't mean I'm not susceptible to feeling nerve impulses while I'm trapped in this biological organism. That said, my dentist has at least two clients that decline all freezing when getting painful dental procedures done. He says they meditate a lot and one is a Buddhist. Maybe they'd let you go hit them in the face with a hammer? Feeling physical pain doesn't necessitate the belief that 'the suffering is indeed real'. You feel pain in a dream when you're getting hurt, the pain feels real and the dream environment can feel as real as this one.. but then you wake up. If you're not the body, then any pains that happen to the body are temporary and do not happen to you. "Spiritually unconscious" is just more metaphysical woo, probably uttered by people who like to feel they're more enlightened than others. One shouldn't be in "awe at the mystery of existence" since mystery is just ignorance and there's nothing awesome about ignorance. Existence is awesome enough without exalting our ignorance, and that includes the things we know as much as the things we don't. The point is that if a "belief" like "nothing is real" doesn't pay rent to live in your head in the form of anticipating your experiences or affecting your decisions, then what's the point of believing it at all? It's just on par with "we're a brain in a vat" or "the universe is a simulation" and other unfalsifiable notions that serve no purpose beyond mental masturbation. That's either projection or negative assumption. You can do a quick google search into what 'Spiritual consciousness' is if you're curious. I agree, if your worldview doesn't do service to your mental health then it's time to become curious and step out of your comfort zone and broaden your perspective. You can still engage in the game and think the game is worthwhile while being conscious that it's a game. I think of being human as 'playing the human game'. One thing for sure, people who take things seriously invariably suffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 30, 2019 13:45:04 GMT
"Spiritually unconscious" is just more metaphysical woo, probably uttered by people who like to feel they're more enlightened than others. One shouldn't be in "awe at the mystery of existence" since mystery is just ignorance and there's nothing awesome about ignorance. Existence is awesome enough without exalting our ignorance, and that includes the things we know as much as the things we don't. The point is that if a "belief" like "nothing is real" doesn't pay rent to live in your head in the form of anticipating your experiences or affecting your decisions, then what's the point of believing it at all? It's just on par with "we're a brain in a vat" or "the universe is a simulation" and other unfalsifiable notions that serve no purpose beyond mental masturbation. That's either projection or negative assumption. You can do a quick google search into what 'Spiritual consciousness' is if you're curious. I agree, if your worldview doesn't do service to your mental health then it's time to become curious and step out of your comfort zone and broaden your perspective. You can still engage in the game and think the game is worthwhile while being conscious that it's a game. I think of being human as 'playing the human game'. One thing for sure, people who take things seriously invariably suffer. How so? You're the one claiming everyone who doesn't agree with your metaphysics are "spiritually unconscious." Isn't it you who's making an awfully big assumption there? I don't need to do a Google search to recognize woo terminology. I'd say it's less about your worldview doing service to your mental health and more about your worldview actually having some resemblance to how the world actually is rather than how you just want it to be or imagine it to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 30, 2019 13:46:01 GMT
In the question 'Why would/does God allow suffering', there are assumptions you can make even though I agree with you that no human mind can 'know God'. No matter what kind of God the belief is in, there is always connected to it the belief that 'When we die that's not it'. If when you die, 'that's not it', your suffering here is given a different perspective. A walk in the woods on a beautiful day is all the evidence I need. This doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said. To answer "why would/does God allow suffering?" first requires God existing to be answerable, otherwise you might as well ask "how many angles can fit on the head of a pin?" or "do Gargoyles hate elves?" How is a walk in the woods on a beautiful day evidence of anything beyond the fact that our brains evolved towards appreciating certain aesthetics? This thread is about people who ask the question 'Why does God allow suffering'? Or, 'If there's a God, why would He allow suffering?' In both instances we're assuming some sort of God exists for the sake of the question. It's a philosophical question and 'proof of God' doesn't enter into it at all. Have our brains evolved towards appreciating certain aesthetics? Why is it that many people can walk past a beautiful sunset and not notice anything spectacular? Perhaps a feeling of awe is the default and all our conditioning with schools and media limit and narrow our perspectives?
|
|
